Leadership shows its commitment through governance that pins responsibility and accountability for public risk on named people, so that SMS policies and procedures are built and run to manage the risks found, operations follow them, drivers and staff can report hazards, incidents and improvement ideas without fear of payback, and those with safety duties hold the authority, skill and resources to carry them out; commitment is read from how well the SMS works, not from statements. Eight things are looked for. Senior managers share a realistic grasp of the operating context: how the business actually runs, what its heavy vehicle work involves, what hazards and public risks that work creates, and which controls are in place and how they operate day to day, grounded in practical knowledge of the policies and systems of work staff follow. Governance names who owns each key safety function and how accountability for outcomes is exercised and checked. Safety decisions sit with people who hold a matching delegation, while ultimate accountability stays at governance level. Those in leadership or governance safety roles are competent to oversee public risk and to judge whether the SMS is working. Governance gives senior management sight of safety intelligence: the risk profile and shifts in it, incidents and non-conformances, how well controls perform, and what SMS reviews found. Reporting channels are backed from the top and shield reporters from reprisal. Governance secures the resources the SMS needs and folds SMS requirements into business processes. And senior management keeps enough oversight of workforce capability to know what staff must know and do to work safely and whether the systems of work are understood and applied.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.